Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

Case T‑395/14Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd v OHIM, Lego Juris A/S is another of those intellectual property cases that hits the headlines on account of its subject matter rather than because of its intrinsic legal interest -- though it is by no means lacking in legal interest. It's a General Court of the European Union decision regarding the validity of a Lego Community trade mark that will be familiar to many readers who are children, have children or are movie buffs: the three-dimensional shape of a little Lego man.
The decision of the court has been conveniently summarised by a Curia press release, which reads like this (the bold black text is in the original; the red consists of Kat comments):

"The General Court upholds the registration of the shape of Lego figures as a
Community trade mark

According to the Community Trade Mark Regulation, a sign which consists exclusively of the
shape determined by the nature of the goods themselves or which consists exclusively of the
shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result may not be registered as a Community trade
mark.
In 2000, Lego Juris (‘Lego’) registered the following three-dimensional Community trade marks
with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (‘OHIM’) in respect of, inter alia, games and
playthings:

Katnote: the illustration above is the one that appears in the text of the decision available from the Curia website. The press release also features a version that shows the little thingummy on the top of the man's head that interlocks with other Lego pieces

Best-Lock, a competitor which uses similar figures, applied for a declaration of invalidity in respect
of those trade marks, on the grounds, first, that the shape of the goods in question is determined
by the nature of the goods themselves (namely, the possibility of joining them to other interlocking
building blocks for play purposes) [Article 7(1)(e)(i)] and, second, that the toy figures in question, both as a whole
and in their particulars, provided technical solutions (namely, being combined with other building
blocks) [Article 7(1)(e)(ii)]. OHIM rejected Best-Lock’s applications for a declaration of invalidity. Best-Lock therefore
applied to the General Court of the European Union for annulment of OHIM’s decisions.By today’s judgments, the General Court dismisses Best-Lock’s actions and thereby upholds the
decisions to register the shape of Lego figures as a Community trade mark.
Regarding, first of all, the complaint that the shape of the goods in question is determined by the
nature of the goods themselves, the General Court rejects that complaint as inadmissible in so far
as Best-Lock has not put forward any argument to support that assertion and has not provided any
reasoning to show that OHIM’s findings in that regard were incorrect.

Concerning the complaint that the shape of the goods in question is necessary to obtain a
technical result, the General Court observes that it appears that no technical result is
connected to or entailed by the shape of the essential characteristics of the figures (heads,
bodies, arms and legs), as those characteristics do not, in any event, allow the figures to be
joined to interlocking building blocks. In addition, the graphical representation of the hands of
the figures in question, the protrusion on their heads and the holes under their feet and inside the
backs of their legs do not, per se, enable it to be known whether those components have any
technical function (such as enabling them to be joined to other components) and, if so, what that
function is [this is the subtle point: the graphical representation, which defines the character of the mark, its registrability and its scope of protection, does not enable the consumer to know that the parts in question have any technical function -- even if that function may be known to the consumer by some other means]. Lastly, there is nothing to permit the inference that the shape of the figures in question
is, as such and as a whole, necessary to enable the figures to be joined to interlocking building
blocks: the ‘result’ of that shape is simply to confer human traits on those figures, it being
understood that the fact that the figures in question represent characters and may be used by a
child in an appropriate play context cannot be described as a ‘technical result’ [in other words, an assessment of 'technical result' must be made by looking at the mark itself, not by projecting such a result upon mark by working backwards from the use that is actually made of it].
The General Court concludes from this that the characteristics of the shape of the figures in
question are not necessary to obtain a technical result".

The IPKat thinks that this decision, which affirms the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal, must be a correct application of Articles 7(1)(e)(i) and 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulation. Merpel observes that this appeal decision does not concern Article 7(1)(e)(iii), which provides an absolute bar to registration where a mark consists exclusively of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods.

3 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I presume that this judgement won't stop Best-Lock from producing their own versions, but may stop them from using their products on packaging etc. where it may be construed as use in a trade mark sense?

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!